Ron Paul and Right Wing Extremists: It’s Complicated

Now that Ron Paul’s presidential candidacy is undeniably viable, no stone can go unturned in the effort to paint him as an extremist. Jim Rutenberg and Serge F. Kovalesky for the New York Times:

The American Free Press, which markets books like “The Invention of the Jewish People” and “March of the Titans: A History of the White Race,” is urging its subscribers to help it send hundreds of copies of Ron Paul’s collected speeches to voters in New Hampshire. The book, it promises, will “Help Dr. Ron Paul Win the G.O.P. Nomination in 2012!”

Don Black, director of the white nationalist Web site Stormfront, said in an interview that several dozen of his members were volunteering for Mr. Paul’s presidential campaign, and a site forum titled “Why is Ron Paul such a favorite here?” has no fewer than 24 pages of comments. “I understand he wins many fans because his monetary policy would hurt Jews,” read one.

Far-right groups like the Militia of Montana say they are rooting for Mr. Paul as a stalwart against government tyranny.

Mr. Paul’s surprising surge in polls is creating excitement within a part of his political base that has been behind him for decades but overshadowed by his newer fans on college campuses and in some liberal precincts who are taken with his antiwar, anti-drug-laws messages.

The white supremacists, survivalists and anti-Zionists who have rallied behind his candidacy have not exactly been warmly welcomed. “I wouldn’t be happy with that,” Mr. Paul said in an interview Friday when asked about getting help from volunteers with anti-Jewish or antiblack views.

But he did not disavow their support. “If they want to endorse me, they’re endorsing what I do or say — it has nothing to do with endorsing what they say,” said Mr. Paul, who is now running strong in Iowa for the Republican nomination…

share this:

Related

Bless your heart, Majestic. Your commentary that pointing out the obvious about Ron Paul, that his career and public identity are built entirely on neoconfederate dogwhistle politics, constitutes “leaving no stone unturned in the effort to paint him as an extremist” is absolutely adorable.

Reasor

Bless your heart, Majestic. Your commentary that pointing out the obvious about Ron Paul, that his career and public identity are built entirely on neoconfederate dogwhistle politics, constitutes “leaving no stone unturned in the effort to paint him as an extremist” is absolutely adorable.

Sarcasm aside, I do appreciate you posting the article, as evidence for the case against any responsible person ever voting for this hateful little goblin. Sure, he’d undo every federal civil rights, labor rights, social safety net and environmental protection victory we’ve fought for and one over the last century, but hey! Legalized weed for everybody!

Proof? He is all about individual rights and freedoms, for all Americans. How is he a hateful little goblin?

His ideas are based on the constitution, and he’s been consistent his entire career.

Check his plan to restore america.. he will not end social programs or stop the benefits to the poor, elderly, and veterans. He is not ending the FDA or EPA, but is cutting some of their funding and making them more efficient. Sounds like your just making assumptions based on other peoples assumptions, instead of seeing what he has actually said on the matter and what he plans to do as president.

Interesting the buzz word that’s been all over the net recently, Neoconfederate. Which seems like its anytime someone challenges the unconstitutional actions of the federal government…

Thomastovey19642

if Ron Paul really does get the Presidency and deliver on any of his promises…he’ll be dead within a week. There is nothing except short of a revolution that will change anything in America.

http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

the cynical thing to say here, is that there’s nothing more powerful than a martyr

Fuck

You Sir are a idiot. No reason to even try and explain anything to a IDIOT.

Jin The Ninja

You sir, (insert comma), are AN idiot. No reason, I should try to explain anything to AN idiot.

OH did he HURT your poor little confederate feelings? I feel SO totally bad for you…

$4251815

Ron Paul’s a twat, but you’re one annoying douche…

Jin The Ninja

I’ll fully embrace that title, whatever it actually means.

And why do you follow all my comments, if i am such a “douche?” wouldn’t that be someone to avoid rather than engage? I suspect you are someone’s alterna ego, but you’re really too chicken shit to confront me with your regular account-literally every post Zombie has ever made has been to me. Glad to know i have such a fanboy/stalker. Flattering really.

Misinformation

One would think the irony of a post like this would stop making me chuckle at some point but it never does.

OneDirection

He’d also undo the federal government’s war on civil liberties, the drone terror war and the disastrous drug war, also massively bolstered by the present administration. Do these things mean nothing to you? If so, then you are not worth listening to.

http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

Wait, so in the last century, we’ve had victories in our labor rights, social safety nets and environmental protection?

Jin The Ninja

‘institutional’ (representative/parliamentary) democracy is that which feigns moral authority and consensus, but is really much more sinister; functioning somewhat like mass hypnosis. we are still led by technocrats, oligarchs, and plutarchs- so really it doesn’t matter if Paul is elected or not. the system is broken, and he can’t fix it- specifically his environmental aspect. The EPA is not-so-secretely an industry lobby, but at least in theory it is meant to be preventative. When the EPA is gutted, i highly doubt a reversal of course will take shape.

TCPrimus

I wanted to attack what you’ve said here, but then I realized at least 4 other people had already considered it, and what a terrible irony it would be for me to play into that.

JoiquimCouteau

Or, we could ride the Arrow of History into the bright future that’s just always been just a law away.

chrstnmchl

Nice – “hateful little goblin.”

Pot, meet the kettle.

Anonymous

Proof? He is all about individual rights and freedoms, for all Americans. How is he a hateful little goblin?

His ideas are based on the constitution, and he’s been consistent his entire career.

Check his plan to restore america.. he will not end social programs or stop the benefits to the poor, elderly, and veterans. He is not ending the FDA or EPA, but is cutting some of their funding and making them more efficient. Sounds like your just making assumptions based on other peoples assumptions, instead of seeing what he has actually said on the matter and what he plans to do as president.

Interesting the buzz word that’s been all over the net recently, Neoconfederate. Which basically is anytime someone challenges the unconstitutional actions of the federal government…

Fuck

You Sir are a idiot. No reason to even try and explain anything to a IDIOT.

OneDirection

He’d also undo the federal government’s war on civil liberties, the drone terror war and the disastrous drug war, also massively bolstered by the present administration. Do these things mean nothing to you? If so, then you are not worth listening to.

http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

Wait, so in the last century, we’ve had victories in our labor rights, social safety nets and environmental protection?

Suddenly Spam!

It’s not like a few thousand voting machines can’t have a terrible glitch and all of the “Ron Paul” votes get tossed out, so whats with the smear campaign? Sure, he’s an old racist coot and his followers are either uninformed neckbeards or felons, but the mans not all bad.

Redacted

It’s not like a few thousand voting machines can’t have a terrible glitch and all of the “Ron Paul” votes get tossed out, so whats with the smear campaign? Sure, he’s an old racist coot and his followers are either uninformed neckbeards or felons, but the mans not all bad.

“all of his followers are uninformed neckbeards or felons” = smear. Or to answer with an example, anyone who supports “blank” is a “blank”. Sounds like a baseless ad hominem to me.

Jin The Ninja

Perhaps a blanketing generalised statement, but not demonstrably false either (particularly the neckbeards part).

http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

Unfalsifiable = arguing the arbitrary. So the question is why did you set up this rhetorical trope? Do you think it is wise to lump anyone who disagrees with you into a stereotypical group?

Redacted

Because I’m a Troll, Neckbeard.

Jin The Ninja

Except I didn`t. I also do not find generalisations to be particularly helpful. I have no animosity towards people whom would lend their support to ron paul, but neither do i respect their sanctification / valorisation of him. The repeal of the 1964 Civil Rights act would be a racist action, because Cameron, the constitution, as it historically stands (both in it’s codification and historical context of genocide/slavery and anti-ethnic immigrant sentiment) firmly entrenched a racial hierarchy in the US. And while no amount of amendments/qualifying amendments are ever going to culturally, socially, and legally equalise race relations, the repeal of them, is going to move it further backwards. I say this as a person of colour. That does not mean ron paul followers are “racist” but they certainly overwhelmingly skew white and right. For a purported civil libertarian, there is nothing civil nor libertarian about relagating race relations back 100 years.

http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

Jin it appears you have an agenda to promote. At least try to make rational sense when you do so. Dr. Paul is not racist and your asking how any of Spam’s comments are demonstrably false is racist and offensive. I too am a person of color (peach and sometimes tan ;P ) and I believe that playing the race card and presenting that Dr. Paul is racist when he is absolutely not is completely misleading and disingenuous. You can say whatever you want but it doesn’t make it true. Dr. Paul would do much more to help minorities and anyone else abused by the system as it stands now. Especially regarding the unfair exploitation of the entire judicial system (statistically proven time and again) by releasing non violent drug offenders. He is not racist and insinuating so is racist on your part. What does it matter that “white” and “right” support him, guess what that is most of the country. Should we therefore not support someone simply because a majority of people of a certain “color” (white is not some monolithic group by the way, your own issues with race are belied in such presuppositions) happen to support him? What of Obama, would it make logical sense for someone who is not a “a person of color” (by your own definition not mine) to not immediately support Obama because “people of color” do? Wouldn’t you see the racist paradigm prevailing in that persons thought processes?

It’s his opinion is that federal mandates for civil rights undermine individual liberty and a free market is the ultimate equalizer. First, while it hasn’t completely erased racial tensions, it has done a lot to equalize rights in an atmosphere of overwhelmingly pervasive, institutional racism. Second, a free market that doesn’t include provisions that everyone must be included is not a free market for anyone who isn’t in power or majority. There’s absolutely no way that that assertion could be true. It’s like saying that black people could have flourished in the free market in the pre-civil war south. No market forces in the world would have made that true. It’s not in the interest of business to give up free labor (or cheap labor in the case of businesses who still hire illegal immigrants today). Read almost any recent financial headline to determine if businesses care about the rights of individual employees or customers – banks especially (google “predatory loans”). None of the progress we’ve had (mentioned in his speech) would have occurred without federal mandates ensuring the equal rights of everyone.

In my opinion, this single stance is why Ron Paul has so many white power supporters. If the civil rights act was struck down, those who choose to could go back to racist, unequal hiring/employment practices. There would be no protections for workers who are unfairly treated based on color or sex. That just can’t make sense to anyone who values equality.

It’s his opinion is that federal mandates for civil rights undermine individual liberty and a free market is the ultimate equalizer. First, while it hasn’t completely erased racial tensions, it has done a lot to equalize rights in an atmosphere of overwhelmingly pervasive, institutional racism. Second, a free market that doesn’t include provisions that everyone must be included is not a free market for anyone who isn’t in power or majority. There’s absolutely no way that that assertion could be true. It’s like saying that black people could have flourished in the free market in the pre-civil war south. No market forces in the world would have made that true. It’s not in the interest of business to give up free labor (or cheap labor in the case of businesses who still hire illegal immigrants today). Read almost any recent financial headline to determine if businesses care about the rights of individual employees or customers – banks especially (google “predatory loans”). None of the progress we’ve had (mentioned in his speech) would have occurred without federal mandates ensuring the equal rights of everyone.

In my opinion, this single stance is why Ron Paul has so many white power supporters. If the civil rights act was struck down, those who choose to could go back to racist, unequal hiring/employment practices. There would be no protections for workers who are unfairly treated based on color or sex. That just can’t make sense to anyone who values equality. Less equality equals less liberty and less freedom.

emc_0

Thank you Mike for contributing references and examples to back up your position. A civilized debate is much more effective than name calling.

Ron’s position is that as a business owner, they have just as many rights to their property as they would a homeowner. Except for government employees, if a business owner wants to exclude certain people from their property it is their right.. but it goes both ways. A black business owner could prohibit certain groups from entering their property, like violent or racist people.
The laws do not stop racism, they just force people to pretend their not racist. Do you really want to go to a business that is forced to serve people they hate?

I disagree that legislation was necessary for the progress that has been made, other than those which struck down already existing laws that were racist. The most important factor was the change in peoples perceptions.

nixkuroi

Your example leads directly toward the seemingly compassionate separationist ideology. Philosophically, it appears that this line of thinking just wants us all to get along, but with our own kind if that’s our desire. Following that philosophy, we all get along better with our own kind and with the freedom to treat others unequally if we so choose. Effectively though, separate but equal is inherently unequal because it denies the right of a US citizen to exercise the free market, schools, etc equally regardless of their color, creed, etc.

If an Asian man bought the only hardware store in a logging community and was allowed to set prices or access to crucial equipment based on race, then every White or Black person would be at a competitive disadvantage and unable to participate in the local economy compared to other Asian people. The Asian man would be first to market and could stifle others trying to enter it by essentially overcharging his competitor’s customers into poverty (until the competitor entered the market), then undercharge until his competitors died (See Walmart). If this went on long enough it would impoverish everyone but Asian people in the region, forcing almost everyone else to leave. Brown v Board of Education (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education) illustrated why separate but equal also doesn’t work in education.

Separate but equal favors those already in power, which makes it unequal. If “All men are created equal” (as is said by Thomas Jefferson) and we interpret that to include men of all races – which I believe is part of the progress that Dr. Paul mentions in his speech (if not word for word, than certainly in many interviews after the fact), then a separationist ideology inherently contradicts the progress that Dr. Paul acknowledges.

If I misunderstood where you’re coming from, I apologize and feel free to correct my inference. Otherwise, you might agree that practically, making people adhere to equal standards for all in the marketplace is the only way to have it actually be a free market.

http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

But what if I want to exclude Justin Beiber fans from my business.

http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

This’l be some fun devil’s advocating: here we go.

Federally mandated behavior of any kind is detrimental in any sense can be harmful simply (as emc said) because it requires people to pretend. It has a pressure towards dishonesty for those that unwittingly wish harm upon society. In this sense people are being dishonest about who they are, and social institutions such as racism can, through an interesting form of subterfuge, freely proliferate throughout all of society.

I would say however that the synthetic civil rights act set forth an ideal, a bandaid, over a complex social issue that did have the benefit of having a generation that believes in the ideal. However, real conflict of racism has just been hidden and moved forward in time. Society has had time to catch its breath and not focus directly on the issue, but a metaphorical apocalypse where the racists scream “the time is nigh” is necessary before real battles can be fought and they can be called out and exiled. An apocalypse looks bad only because reality is revealed, and sometimes (especially this case) reality is ugly.

Just like he is not a huge pothead, yet has tons of pothead supporters, he is not necessarily a racist just because he has tons of racist supporters. (And even if he is a racist, he can be this figurehead to be torn down outing the real racists in the process)

nixkuroi

I’ll tackle your last statement first and work backward.

I didn’t make any kind of assertions that Ron Paul is a racist, only that his opposition to the Civil Rights act of 1964 is a magnet for white supremicists and a possible reason for their support of his campaign. The point you make about marijuana advocates is a good example of people supporting individual issues of his platform. Drug reform is one, the Civil Rights act is another, and the fed is still another. I tend to support most of his other stances, most particularly on privacy, which is why, for me, it’s too bad he stands where he does on Civil Rights.

The Civil Rights act, synthetic or not, band aid or not, is just like any other legislation meant to curtail unwanted behavior and effect long term change in mindset. I suspect that to a great extent, it wasn’t intended to change the minds of the first generation of people to live under it. It was there to create an environment where the subject behavior was shown to be socially unacceptable and foster an environment where the next generation could develop without overt racism. Your band aid metaphor is an excellent one. Sometimes politicians use the band aid metaphor as a representation of an inadequate treatment. Most other people refer to a band aid as something that facilitates healing so later, when you take it off, there might be a scar, but things are better. I would subscribe to this interpretation and would equate white supremacists’ support of jettisoning the Civil Rights act as the wound not quite being ready for the band aid to be pulled off. When will it be ready? That’s above my pay grade, but I suppose it’ll be when you peel the band aid back and everything is healed. I think the metaphorical apocalypse probably happened a long time ago. Racism had its day in court and it lost. Ideologies don’t die out over night though. For it to have another, it’d need the momentum of something like upending the Civil Rights act, but that’s precisely what it’s there to prevent. I’m going to disagree that a race war, metaphorical or not, would solve the racial problems of this country, but maybe that was just devil’s advocacy and not your belief personally.

Finally federally mandated behavior is the definition of the constitution and the framework set forth by the framers, but without going too deeply into constitutional law, I think I pretty much covered this above. What it boils down to is that while racism can’t just be whisked away by asking people to pretend not to be racist, what the Civil Rights act did was create an environment of civility in which a) discourse could take place, b) everyone had to be treated equally with some recourse if they weren’t, c) act as an example to the future and d) act as a band aid and catalyst for societal reconstitution. I think part of the theory here was that if people see and experience other people without institutional prejudices over time, they’re less likely to judge them by their stereotypes. This relates to whites with blacks, Southerners and northerners, liberals and conservatives, etc. Does this mean there’s no more racism? Obviously not. Does it mean that there’s less and the impacts are easy to see? I’m fairly certain it does.

Hopefully this clears up some of my positions on the matter and thanks for playing devil’s advocate. I was able to clarify some of my points and hopefully instill some understanding as to why I, and some others appreciate many of his goals, but can’t quite make it into the Paul camp.

http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

Great response. Its refreshing when people can tell the difference between devil’s advocacy and actual views.

I will say that i’m sure that he doesn’t have a chance in hell to actually upend the civil rights act. And on that, I think it’s okay to support him even if all his views i don’t agree with.

Zakzac

he wins my vote

Zakzac

he wins my vote

Thomastovey19642

if Ron Paul really does get the Presidency and deliver on any of his promises…he’ll be dead within a week. There is nothing except short of a revolution that will change anything in America.

Jin (仁)

You sir, (insert comma), are AN idiot. No reason, I should try to explain anything to AN idiot.

OH did he HURT your poor little confederate feelings? I feel SO totally bad for you…

Anonymous

Thank you Mike for contributing references and examples to back up your position. A civilized debate is much more effective than name calling.

Ron’s position is that as a business owner, they have just as many rights to their property as they would a homeowner. Except for government employees, if a business owner wants to exclude certain people from their property it is their right.. but it goes both ways. A black business owner could prohibit certain groups from entering their property, like violent or racist people.
The laws do not stop racism, they just force people to pretend their not racist. Do you really want to go to a business that is forced to serve people they hate?

I disagree that legislation was necessary for the progress that has been made, other than those which struck down already existing laws that were racist. The most important factor was the change in peoples perceptions.

Jin (仁)

what did spam say that was demonstrably false?

Jin (仁)

‘institutional’ (representative/parliamentary) democracy is that which feigns moral authority and consensus, but is really much more sinister; functioning somewhat like mass hypnosis. we are still led by technocrats, oligarchs, and plutarchs- so really it doesn’t matter if Paul is elected or not. the system is broken, and he can’t fix it- specifically his environmental aspect. The EPA is not-so-secretely an industry lobby, but at least in theory it is meant to be preventative. When the EPA is gutted, i highly doubt a reversal of course will take shape.

Librisgeek

Even if Paul was racist, he would still benefit minorities and poor whites more than any other politician. He is proposing pardoning every person in prison for drug related non-violent crimes (most of whom disproportionately are black). I’ll admit, it’s only one issue but even if that was the only thing he did, it would help out Blacks more than Obama ever will.

Yes he is against affirmative action, but (objectively you have to admit) it is special treatment for one race over another (which almost seems, well like another form of discrimination) am I wrong about this?

Librisgeek

Even if Paul was racist, he would still benefit minorities and poor whites more than any other politician. He is proposing pardoning every person in prison for drug related non-violent crimes (most of whom disproportionately are black). I’ll admit, it’s only one issue but even if that was the only thing he did, it would help out Blacks more than Obama ever will.

Yes he is against affirmative action, but (objectively you have to admit) it is special treatment for one race over another (which almost seems, well like another form of discrimination) am I wrong about this?

YouGoPaul

Amen, Sistah

nixkuroi

I completely agree with your assertion about the drug pardon.

Affirmative action, on the other hand, was put in place to correct pervasive, institutionally racist hiring practices. The problem with it was that there is no level of nuance at a finer grain than one individual person losing a job opportunity to another that they consider less qualified, no matter that the person in question wasn’t given the same opportunities for education or training that was given to the person missing out on the job. When you’re personally affected by such a law, you don’t see the big picture or how society has moved incrementally to correct an overall injustice. You just see how your kid isn’t getting a bike for Christmas because you didn’t get a raise. It’s the same with laws like eminent domain where the state can just take your land and offer you whatever money they think is fair market value. You see them taking your land. The rest of the country sees a national highway system that allows for interstate commerce. I personally know people on both sides of the Affirmative Action AND Eminent Domain laws and it always feels worse for the guy that gets railroaded by the government for the “greater good”. Everybody loves to hear that old Spock line “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one” until they’re losing their job or their farm land. That doesn’t make such moves any less necessary for the greater good of the country.

MoralDrift

Here is just a thought, as someone said in another comment, society has had time to develop since affirmative action was put in place;

Is it not reasonable to think that businesses that were openly racist or discriminatory would be targeted for boycotting through organized internet campaigns or simply word of mouth?

I also understand that a select few business owners might take pride in being discriminatory and being on a “boycott list”….but ya know what so be it, the vast majority of smart business owners will avoid being labeled racist like the plague.

I think there is so much potential for people to regulate themselves now, as communities, that is the ultimate promise of the organizing power of the ‘net. People give up their RESPONSIBILITIES and their RIGHTS when they believe government will step in and ensure equality, but we all have a part to play.

All this being said, yes some of Dr. Paul’s ideas are extreme…but ill take community regulation over industry regulation any day, its just the onus will be on US.

will

When a broken down government needs radical change, you vote for the radical. Go Ron Paul.

will

When a broken down government needs radical change, you vote for the radical. Go Ron Paul.

YouGoPaul

Amen, Sistah

ZombieSlapper

Ron Paul’s a twat, but you’re one annoying douche…

Jin (仁)

I’ll fully embrace that title, whatever it actually means.

And why do you follow all my comments, if i am such a “douche?” wouldn’t that be someone to avoid rather than engage? I suspect you are someone’s alterna ego, but you’re really too chicken shit to confront me with your regular account-literally every post Zombie has ever made has been to me. Glad to know i have such a fanboy/stalker. Flattering really.

http://profiles.google.com/nixkuroi Mike Simon

Your example leads directly toward the seemingly compassionate separationist ideology. Philosophically, it appears that this line of thinking just wants us all to get along, but with our own kind if that’s our desire. Following that philosophy, we all get along better with our own kind and with the freedom to treat others unequally if we so choose. Effectively though, separate but equal is inherently unequal because it denies the right of a US citizen to exercise the free market, schools, etc equally regardless of their color, creed, etc.

If an Asian man bought the only hardware store in a logging community and was allowed to set prices or access to crucial equipment based on race, then every White or Black person would be at a competitive disadvantage and unable to participate in the local economy compared to other Asian people. The Asian man would be first to market and could stifle others trying to enter it by essentially overcharging his competitor’s customers into poverty (until the competitor entered the market), then undercharge until his competitors died (See Walmart). If this went on long enough it would impoverish everyone but Asian people in the region, forcing almost everyone else to leave. Brown v Board of Education (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education) illustrated why separate but equal also doesn’t work in education.

Separate but equal favors those already in power, which makes it unequal. If “All men are created equal” (as is said by Thomas Jefferson) and we interpret that to include men of all races – which I believe is part of the progress that Dr. Paul mentions in his speech (if not word for word, than certainly in many interviews after the fact), then a separationist ideology inherently contradicts the progress that Dr. Paul acknowledges.

If I misunderstood where you’re coming from, I apologize and feel free to correct my inference. Otherwise, you might agree that practically, making people adhere to equal standards for all in the marketplace is the only way to have it actually be a free market.

Misinformation

One would think the irony of a post like this would stop making me chuckle at some point but it never does.

Misinformation

Did I miss the part where the President of the United States could actually make a real change to the system?

Misinformation

Did I miss the part where the President of the United States could actually make a real change to the system?

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JR6QMHI5D3L6Z4JJBSAKO4KJBE brock

This is the great magic trick of our democracy. For approximately 2 years the populous is obsessed with who is going to be president while all the rest (congressional & local reps) are part of a distributed system that is relatively easy to game.

The one thing that interest me about Ron Paul is his potential to be a huge pain in the ass for the system. If he sticks to his promises then he’ll essentially shut down the federal government for as long as he can stay in office. Aside from being able to make some substantial changes to the military, his only other real power is the veto. It’s not like he’ll be able to manage coalitions within congress to pass legislation because that would require compromises that he’s incapable of making.

Of course, shutting down the federal government will require State governments to step up and would dovetail perfectly into his States’ rights agenda. Congress would probably be forced to cede authority to the States in order to keep the country from collapsing. Meanwhile, they’d probably be doing everything they could to limit the power of the Executive branch of government–which would also jibe with Paul’s goals.

It’d be interesting to see what kind of alliance he might make with corporate powers. If he doesn’t compromise, they can essentially shut the economy down in a way that would make the current recession look like a golden age. He could leverage the populous against the corporations with his overly simplistic economic horse shit and probably muster an army of supporters to threaten the corporate hegemony with civil unrest.

For me it’s a little bit like the bank bailouts with TARP. If we’d have just let the banks fail without a bailout then there would have been an economic catastrophe that would have caused us all a considerable amount of pain. So a bailout with reforms seemed like a sensible solution, only all we got was the bailout and now we’re just going to be back where we started. In hind sight an economic collapse would have been better. I don’t like Paul, but perhaps a collapse of the federal government is the only thing that will bring real change. Only problem is if it ends up validating Paul then that could lead us all down the path of his socially regressive ideology.

http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

This’l be some fun devil’s advocating: here we go.

Federally mandated behavior of any kind is detrimental in any sense can be harmful simply (as emc said) because it requires people to pretend. It has a pressure towards dishonesty for those that unwittingly wish harm upon society. In this sense people are being dishonest about who they are, and social institutions such as racism can, through an interesting form of subterfuge, freely proliferate throughout all of society.

I would say however that the synthetic civil rights act set forth an ideal, a bandaid, over a complex social issue that did have the benefit of having a generation that believes in the ideal. However, real conflict of racism has just been hidden and moved forward in time. Society has had time to catch its breath and not focus directly on the issue, but a metaphorical apocalypse where the racists scream “the time is nigh” is necessary before real battles can be fought and they can be called out and exiled. An apocalypse looks bad only because reality is revealed, and sometimes (especially this case) reality is ugly.

Just like he is not a huge pothead, yet has tons of pothead supporters, he is not necessarily a racist just because he has tons of racist supporters. (And even if he is a racist, he can be this figurehead to be torn down outing the real racists in the process)

http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

But what if I want to exclude Justin Beiber fans from my business.

Anonymous

Or, we could ride the Arrow of History into the bright future that’s just always been just a law away.

Flea

Mike, I agree with a lot of what you have to say. I’m Hispanic, and I get treated like a second class citizen on a weekly basis. Even the original deed to my 1911 house restricted blacks and Mexicans from owning it. So I can understand the importance of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Ron Paul is a strict Constitutionalist, so naturally he couldn’t support such a legislation. It violates the Tenth Amendment, overstepping the rights of a state. While Dr. Paul does have a point, he obviously never got sent to the back of a bus for the color of his skin. I like Dr. Paul, and I honestly don’t believe he’s a racist. However, if he walked a few miles in my shoes, I’m sure he’d question some of his controversial views. He’s still a lot more electable than the other candidates despite some of his principles. I’ve never heard him say he wanted to repeal the Civil Rights Act as far as I know.

Flea

Mike, I agree with a lot of what you have to say. I’m Hispanic, and I get treated like a second class citizen on a weekly basis. Even the original deed to my 1911 house restricted blacks and Mexicans from owning it. So I can understand the importance of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Ron Paul is a strict Constitutionalist, so naturally he couldn’t support such a legislation. It violates the Tenth Amendment, overstepping the rights of a state. While Dr. Paul does have a point, he obviously never got sent to the back of a bus for the color of his skin. I like Dr. Paul, and I honestly don’t believe he’s a racist. However, if he walked a few miles in my shoes, I’m sure he’d question some of his controversial views. He’s still a lot more electable than the other candidates despite some of his principles. I’ve never heard him say he wanted to repeal the Civil Rights Act as far as I know.

nixkuroi

Flea,

I wasn’t saying that he was a racist, just that I find his position on the Civil Rights act to be a stepping on point for racists that want to support him. He has other platforms that I fully support like thoughts on pulling our troops from bases, regaining privacy, drug laws/pardons, etc. For many reasons, I find him an appealing choice, but I can’t get behind certain elements of his platform. He’s said that he wouldn’t have voted for the Civil Rights act because of property rights concerns, but that seems pretty hokey and doesn’t adequately offset the societal gains made by it that he claims were made *despite* it. I can’t buy that reasoning at all any more than I can buy the idea that we still need a base on Japanese soil 70 years after we were attacked. Some of his stances are great, some aren’t, so that’s where I’ve landed on it.

SickOfSycophants

So what is so appealing to you about Obama? That he “would have” voted for the Civil Rights Act? Wow, such an important issue to hang your vote on. Whether the candidate “would have” voted on something 50 years ago. Meanwhile, Obama continues America’s march towards outright fascism. But how he “would have” voted is more important, not how “he did” vote, am I right?

nixkuroi

I haven’t expressed any support or advocacy for President Obama in any of these posts, so I’m not really sure where your questions are coming from.

The fact that I’m posting these responses at all should reflect an interest in seeing Ron Paul’s ideologies shift to the point where I can reconcile them with my own views – thereby earning my vote. The fact that he has stated that he wouldn’t have voted for the Civil Rights act because of property rights is indicative of his general prioritization of issues related to it. He thinks that the property rights issue is key, I think the civil rights aspect is key. That’s where we have a difference in opinion. But all of this is irrelevant to the original point.

My original post and subsequent clarifications have all been about Ron Paul’s position on the Civil Rights act and my supposition that it’s the core stance that white supremicists are attracted to.

Do you disagree with that assertion?

Ronniedobbs

That march began long before Obama….

http://profiles.google.com/nixkuroi Mike Simon

I’ll tackle your last statement first and work backward.

I didn’t make any kind of assertions that Ron Paul is a racist, only that his opposition to the Civil Rights act of 1964 is a magnet for white supremicists and a possible reason for their support of his campaign. The point you make about marijuana advocates is a good example of people supporting individual issues of his platform. Drug reform is one, the Civil Rights act is another, and the fed is still another. I tend to support most of his other stances, most particularly on privacy, which is why, for me, it’s too bad he stands where he does on Civil Rights.

The Civil Rights act, synthetic or not, band aid or not, is just like any other legislation meant to curtail unwanted behavior and effect long term change in mindset. I suspect that to a great extent, it wasn’t intended to change the minds of the first generation of people to live under it. It was there to create an environment where the subject behavior was shown to be socially unacceptable and foster an environment where the next generation could develop without overt racism. Your band aid metaphor is an excellent one. Sometimes politicians use the band aid metaphor as a representation of an inadequate treatment. Most other people refer to a band aid as something that facilitates healing so later, when you take it off, there might be a scar, but things are better. I would subscribe to this interpretation and would equate white supremacists’ support of jettisoning the Civil Rights act as the wound not quite being ready for the band aid to be pulled off. When will it be ready? That’s above my pay grade, but I suppose it’ll be when you peel the band aid back and everything is healed. I think the metaphorical apocalypse probably happened a long time ago. Racism had its day in court and it lost. Ideologies don’t die out over night though. For it to have another, it’d need the momentum of something like upending the Civil Rights act, but that’s precisely what it’s there to prevent. I’m going to disagree that a race war, metaphorical or not, would solve the racial problems of this country, but maybe that was just devil’s advocacy and not your belief personally.

Finally federally mandated behavior is the definition of the constitution and the framework set forth by the framers, but without going too deeply into constitutional law, I think I pretty much covered this above. What it boils down to is that while racism can’t just be whisked away by asking people to pretend not to be racist, what the Civil Rights act did was create an environment of civility in which a) discourse could take place, b) everyone had to be treated equally with some recourse if they weren’t, c) act as an example to the future and d) act as a band aid and catalyst for societal reconstitution. I think part of the theory here was that if people see and experience other people without institutional prejudices over time, they’re less likely to judge them by their stereotypes. This relates to whites with blacks, Southerners and northerners, liberals and conservatives, etc. Does this mean there’s no more racism? Obviously not. Does it mean that there’s less and the impacts are easy to see? I’m fairly certain it does.

Hopefully this clears up some of my positions on the matter and thanks for playing devil’s advocate. I was able to clarify some of my points and hopefully instill some understanding as to why I, and some others appreciate many of his goals, but can’t quite make it into the Paul camp.

http://profiles.google.com/nixkuroi Mike Simon

Flea,

I wasn’t saying that he was a racist, just that I find his position on the Civil Rights act to be a stepping on point for racists that want to support him. He has other platforms that I fully support like thoughts on pulling our troops from bases, regaining privacy, drug laws/pardons, etc. For many reasons, I find him an appealing choice, but I can’t get behind certain elements of his platform. He’s said that he wouldn’t have voted for the Civil Rights act because of property rights concerns, but that seems pretty hokey and doesn’t adequately offset the societal gains made by it that he claims were made *despite* it. I can’t buy that reasoning at all any more than I can buy the idea that we still need a base on Japanese soil 70 years after we were attacked. Some of his stances are great, some aren’t, so that’s where I’ve landed on it.

http://profiles.google.com/nixkuroi Mike Simon

I completely agree with your assertion about the drug pardon.

Affirmative action, on the other hand, was put in place to correct pervasive, institutionally racist hiring practices. The problem with it was that there is no level of nuance at a finer grain than one individual person losing a job opportunity to another that they consider less qualified, no matter that the person in question wasn’t given the same opportunities for education or training that was given to the person missing out on the job. When you’re personally affected by such a law, you don’t see the big picture or how society has moved incrementally to correct an overall injustice. You just see how your kid isn’t getting a bike for Christmas because you didn’t get a raise. It’s the same with laws like eminent domain where the state can just take your land and offer you whatever money they think is fair market value. You see them taking your land. The rest of the country sees a national highway system that allows for interstate commerce. I personally know people on both sides of the Affirmative Action AND Eminent Domain laws and it always feels worse for the guy that gets railroaded by the government for the “greater good”. Everybody loves to hear that old Spock line “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one” until they’re losing their job or their farm land. That doesn’t make such moves any less necessary for the greater good of the country.

http://profiles.google.com/nixkuroi Mike Simon

I completely agree with your assertion about the drug pardon.

Affirmative action, on the other hand, was put in place to correct pervasive, institutionally racist hiring practices. The problem with it was that there is no level of nuance at a finer grain than one individual person losing a job opportunity to another that they consider less qualified, no matter that the person in question wasn’t given the same opportunities for education or training that was given to the person missing out on the job. When you’re personally affected by such a law, you don’t see the big picture or how society has moved incrementally to correct an overall injustice. You just see how your kid isn’t getting a bike for Christmas because you didn’t get a raise. It’s the same with laws like eminent domain where the state can just take your land and offer you whatever money they think is fair market value. You see them taking your land. The rest of the country sees a national highway system that allows for interstate commerce. I personally know people on both sides of the Affirmative Action AND Eminent Domain laws and it always feels worse for the guy that gets railroaded by the government for the “greater good”. Everybody loves to hear that old Spock line “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one” until they’re losing their job or their farm land. That doesn’t make such moves any less necessary for the greater good of the country.

http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

Great response. Its refreshing when people can tell the difference between devil’s advocacy and actual views.

I will say that i’m sure that he doesn’t have a chance in hell to actually upend the civil rights act. And on that, I think it’s okay to support him even if all his views i don’t agree with.

http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

Great response. Its refreshing when people can tell the difference between devil’s advocacy and actual views.

I will say that i’m sure that he doesn’t have a chance in hell to actually upend the civil rights act. And on that, I think it’s okay to support him even if all his views i don’t agree with.

http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

the cynical thing to say here, is that there’s nothing more powerful than a martyr

Anonymous

Here is just a thought, as someone said in another comment, society has had time to develop since affirmative action was put in place;

Is it not reasonable to think that businesses that were openly racist or discriminatory would be targeted for boycotting through organized internet campaigns or simply word of mouth?

I also understand that a select few business owners might take pride in being discriminatory and being on a “boycott list”….but ya know what so be it, the vast majority of smart business owners will avoid being labeled racist like the plague.

I think there is so much potential for people to regulate themselves now, as communities, that is the ultimate promise of the organizing power of the ‘net. People give up their RESPONSIBILITIES and their RIGHTS when they believe government will step in and ensure equality, but we all have a part to play.

All this being said, yes some of Dr. Paul’s ideas are extreme…but ill take community regulation over industry regulation any day, its just the onus will be on US.

Camron Wiltshire

“all of his followers are uninformed neckbeards or felons” = smear. Or to answer with an example, anyone who supports “blank” is a “blank”. Sounds like a baseless ad hominem to me.

Rooti

The Corpocracy is scared to death of Ron Paul. The New York Times is part of the corpocracy as is the rest of the media and the defense contractors. Ron Paul, with his libertarian philosophy, is all about individual rights and that does not abide the plan being shoved down our throats by the New World Order crowd.

Rooti

The Corpocracy is scared to death of Ron Paul. The New York Times is part of the corpocracy as is the rest of the media and the defense contractors. Ron Paul, with his libertarian philosophy, is all about individual rights and that does not abide the plan being shoved down our throats by the New World Order crowd.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XXOQIJEQ7KOS3HRD7TNRVF2QME io2

You know you’re ‘the shit’ when mainstream media’s smears you by association to political opportunists who hang off your coat tails by inkblot diatribes from obscure 30 year old pre-internet ‘newsletters’…all during the primary?!?

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XXOQIJEQ7KOS3HRD7TNRVF2QME io2

You know you’re ‘the shit’ when mainstream media’s smears you by association to political opportunists who hang off your coat tails by inkblot diatribes from obscure 30 year old pre-internet ‘newsletters’…all during the primary?!?

Anonymous

There are only two ways this can go for Ron Paul and the country. He’ll either be the Ralph Nader (split the conservative vote) on the Libertarian ticket or the John Kerry (hold your nose and vote/stay home) on the Republican ticket. The end result of both options is almost certainly four more years for Obama. Talk to any Limbaugh/Hannity neocon and it becomes all too clear. For better or worse, they are 20% of the total voting public.

mysophobe

There are only two ways this can go for Ron Paul and the country. He’ll either be the Ralph Nader (split the conservative vote) on the Libertarian ticket or the John Kerry (hold your nose and vote/stay home) on the Republican ticket. The end result of both options is almost certainly four more years for Obama. Talk to any Limbaugh/Hannity neocon and it becomes all too clear. For better or worse, they are 20% of the total voting public.

SickOfSycophants

So what is so appealing to you about Obama? That he “would have” voted for the Civil Rights Act? Wow, such an important issue to hang your vote on. Whether the candidate “would have” voted on something 50 years ago. Meanwhile, Obama continues America’s march towards outright fascism. But how he “would have” voted is more important, not how “he did” vote, am I right?

SickOfSycophants

So what is so appealing to you about Obama? That he “would have” voted for the Civil Rights Act? Wow, such an important issue to hang your vote on. Whether the candidate “would have” voted on something 50 years ago. Meanwhile, Obama continues America’s march towards outright fascism. But how he “would have” voted is more important, not how “he did” vote, am I right?

CK

Ron Paul IS an extremist, with a long and sordid history of breaking bread with racists, Christian Reconstructionists, Birchers, Jew-obsessives and other miscreants. The media hype is that he’s some kindly old wise uncle, who might be a tad eccentric now and then.

Ron Paul is a media construct- just look at all of his followers who have no idea what he actually stands for but simply fall for the alt-media propaganda.

Being skeptical of the media means ALL media, people.

http://profiles.google.com/nixkuroi Mike Simon

I haven’t expressed any support or advocacy for President Obama in any of these posts, so I’m not really sure where your questions are coming from.

The fact that I’m posting these responses at all should reflect an interest in seeing Ron Paul’s ideologies shift to the point where I can reconcile them with my own views – thereby earning my vote. The fact that he has stated that he wouldn’t have voted for the Civil Rights act because of property rights is indicative of his general prioritization of issues related to it. He thinks that the property rights issue is key, I think the civil rights aspect is key. That’s where we have a difference in opinion. But all of this is irrelevant to the original point.

My original post and subsequent clarifications have all been about Ron Paul’s position on the Civil Rights act and my supposition that it’s the core stance that white supremicists are attracted to.

Do you disagree with that assertion?

CK

Ron Paul IS an extremist, with a long and sordid history of breaking bread with racists, Christian Reconstructionists, Birchers, Jew-obsessives and other miscreants. The media hype is that he’s some kindly old wise uncle, who might be a tad eccentric now and then.

Ron Paul is a media construct- just look at all of his followers who have no idea what he actually stands for but simply fall for the alt-media propaganda.

Being skeptical of the media means ALL media, people.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JR6QMHI5D3L6Z4JJBSAKO4KJBE brock

This is the great magic trick of our democracy. For approximately 2 years the populous is obsessed with who is going to be president while all the rest (congressional & local reps) are part of a distributed system that is relatively easy to game.

The one thing that interest me about Ron Paul is his potential to be a huge pain in the ass for the system. If he sticks to his promises then he’ll essentially shut down the federal government for as long as he can stay in office. Aside from being able to make some substantial changes to the military, his only other real power is the veto. It’s not like he’ll be able to manage coalitions within congress to pass legislation because that would require compromises that he’s incapable of making.

Of course, shutting down the federal government will require State governments to step up and would dovetail perfectly into his States’ rights agenda. Congress would probably be forced to cede authority to the States in order to keep the country from collapsing. Meanwhile, they’d probably be doing everything they could to limit the power of the Executive branch of government–which would also jibe with Paul’s goals.

It’d be interesting to see what kind of alliance he might make with corporate powers. If he doesn’t compromise, they can essentially shut the economy down in a way that would make the current recession look like a golden age. He could leverage the populous against the corporations with his overly simplistic economic horse shit and probably muster an army of supporters to threaten the corporate hegemony with civil unrest.

For me it’s a little bit like the bank bailouts with TARP. If we’d have just let the banks fail without a bailout then there would have been an economic catastrophe that would have caused us all a considerable amount of pain. So a bailout with reforms seemed like a sensible solution, only all we got was the bailout and now we’re just going to be back where we started. In hind sight an economic collapse would have been better. I don’t like Paul, but perhaps a collapse of the federal government is the only thing that will bring real change. Only problem is if it ends up validating Paul then that could lead us all down the path of his socially regressive ideology.

Jin (仁)

Perhaps a blanketing generalised statement, but not demonstrably false either (particularly the neckbeards part).

Anonymous

Nice – “hateful little goblin.”

Pot, meet the kettle.

Anonymous

So, is this supposed to be a news article? It sure reads like a hit piece that should fall under the “editorial” category. Pretty sure page A1 of the NYT is not the editorial page…

They think we are stupid.

chrstnmchl

So, is this supposed to be a news article? It sure reads like a hit piece that should fall under the “editorial” category. Pretty sure page A1 of the NYT is not the editorial page…

Unfalsifiable = arguing the arbitrary. So the question is why did you set up this rhetorical trope? Do you think it is wise to lump anyone who disagrees with you into a stereotypical group?

http://twitter.com/MiddleAmericaMS MiddleAmericaMS

I’m an ex-Ron Paul supporter & he is an extremist, just look at his policies, many are extremist. They also often benefit big business.

He wants to get rid of lots of government agencies, that’s not extremist?

He wants to dump the EPA letting mega corporations pollute as much as they want & your recourse is the legal system, just sue them!

He says businesses should be allowed to be racist.

He wants to completely deregulate business including Wall Street.

He says let the mega corporations donate as much as they want, that’s not an improvement.

If you can’t afford health care, then suffer & die.

No FDA, so when you & your family die from your food, just sue &/or stop buying that food.

After the far right’s Free Market deregulation theory caused the collapse of the global economy & the BP gulf oil spill you would think he would see the flaws in letting mega corporations do whatever they want, but no.

Free Market theory works great in some situations, like main street in the 1800s, but not now & not against super rich & powerful industries.

I’m an ex-Ron Paul supporter & he is an extremist, just look at his policies, many are extremist. They also often benefit big business.

He wants to get rid of lots of government agencies, that’s not extremist?

He wants to dump the EPA letting mega corporations pollute as much as they want & your recourse is the legal system, just sue them!

He says businesses should be allowed to be racist.

He wants to completely deregulate business including Wall Street.

He says let the mega corporations donate as much as they want, that’s not an improvement.

If you can’t afford health care, then suffer & die.

No FDA, so when you & your family die from your food, just sue &/or stop buying that food.

After the far right’s Free Market deregulation theory caused the collapse of the global economy & the BP gulf oil spill you would think he would see the flaws in letting mega corporations do whatever they want, but no.

Free Market theory works great in some situations, like main street in the 1800s, but not now & not against super rich & powerful industries.

Except I didn`t. I also do not find generalisations to be particularly helpful. I have no animosity towards people whom would lend their support to ron paul, but neither do i respect their sanctification / valorisation of him. The repeal of the 1964 Civil Rights act would be a racist action, because Cameron, the constitution, as it historically stands (both in it’s codification and historical context of genocide/slavery and anti-ethnic immigrant sentiment) firmly entrenched a racial hierarchy in the US. And while no amount of amendments/qualifying amendments are ever going to culturally, socially, and legally equalise race relations, the repeal of them, is going to move it further backwards. I say this as a person of colour. That does not mean ron paul followers are “racist” but they certainly overwhelmingly skew white and right. For a purported civil libertarian, there is nothing civil nor libertarian about relagating race relations back 100 years.

Adaugeo

Instead of focusing on newsletters from 20-30 years ago that he doesn’t stand behind, how about looking at his more than two decades of voting which stand for ending war, increasing liberty and freedom, and reducing the size and budget of the federal government? If you like war, enslavement, and big brother style government, vote for somebody else.

Paul’s got my vote.

Adaugeo

Instead of focusing on newsletters from 20-30 years ago that he doesn’t stand behind, how about looking at his more than two decades of voting which stand for ending war, increasing liberty and freedom, and reducing the size and budget of the federal government? If you like war, enslavement, and big brother style government, vote for somebody else.

Paul’s got my vote.

Camron Wiltshire

Jin it appears you have an agenda to promote. At least try to make rational sense when you do so. Dr. Paul is not racist and your asking how any of Spam’s comments are demonstrably false is racist and offensive. I too am a person of color (peach and sometimes tan ;P ) and I believe that playing the race card and presenting that Dr. Paul is racist when he is absolutely not is completely misleading and disingenuous. You can say whatever you want but it doesn’t make it true. Dr. Paul would do much more to help minorities and anyone else abused by the system as it stands now. Especially regarding the unfair exploitation of the entire judicial system (statistically proven time and again) by releasing non violent drug offenders. He is not racist and insinuating so is racist on your part. What does it matter that “white” and “right” support him, guess what that is most of the country. Should we therefore not support someone simply because a majority of people of a certain “color” (white is not some monolithic group by the way, your own issues with race are belied in such presuppositions) happen to support him? What of Obama, would it make logical sense for someone who is not a “a person of color” (by your own definition not mine) to not immediately support Obama because “people of color” do? Wouldn’t you see the racist paradigm prevailing in that persons thought processes?